PKR
Veteran
And you don't have to charge batteries to look at prints.. amazing, no batteries, maybe it will catch on.. battery-less picture viewing.
flip
良かったね！
A stamp on a print received in the mail produces results that ecards sites wish they could.
GSNfan
Well-known
Indeed, a real photographer does not ask questions on the crapatastic internet, instead he posts 'blunt' answers to crapatastic internet questions and make people laugh and cringe at the same time.
GSNfan
Well-known
Appeal to sentimentality is not really the way to go about it convincing people, but it does make it clear why people still print, it is purely for sentimental reasons and to me that is just fine.
FrankS
Registered User
That would be an incorrect assumption on your part, since sentimentality certainly isn't the motivation for everyone who continues to make prints.
Last edited:
I'm going to buy a really nice printer for myself, just to print pictures. I miss dye-sub printers that I had at work, but the newer ink-jet seems to do a decent job.
I have some prints sent to me by an RFF member, hanging up at work. Top quality enlargements. I spent a few hundred having them framed. They receive a lot of notice. Making a print and displaying it in a prominent place helps define who you are to people meeting you for the first time. That has certainly been worthwhile for me.
I have some prints sent to me by an RFF member, hanging up at work. Top quality enlargements. I spent a few hundred having them framed. They receive a lot of notice. Making a print and displaying it in a prominent place helps define who you are to people meeting you for the first time. That has certainly been worthwhile for me.
FrankS
Registered User
To illustrate a point, rethinking/rewording the issue by "putting the shoe on the other foot" is often helpful in jarring a person's thinking. How does this sound to you, GSNfan:
It is clear why people don't make prints anymore - it is purely because they have jumped on the latest newest technology bandwagon, and to me that's just fine.
Clearly this assertion is incorrect, as is yours.
It is clear why people don't make prints anymore - it is purely because they have jumped on the latest newest technology bandwagon, and to me that's just fine.
Clearly this assertion is incorrect, as is yours.
kuzano
Veteran
One of the best posts on this thread, bar none.
One of the best posts on this thread, bar none.
This is a well phrased and well thought out point about surrounding yourself with art. I would only add that hanging your own art indicates to others your self confidence and adds to your sense of self worth.
Well spoken Brian!
You can't do that with video... shot once, seen once, and buried away.
One of the best posts on this thread, bar none.
This is a well phrased and well thought out point about surrounding yourself with art. I would only add that hanging your own art indicates to others your self confidence and adds to your sense of self worth.
Well spoken Brian!
You can't do that with video... shot once, seen once, and buried away.
GSNfan
Well-known
In the initial posts I specifically posted that if someone asks for a print for me, I will print.
I'm not against printing, that would be stupid and funny at the same time. I merely asked if it was necessary to print if no one asked for prints. But then the discussion went into technology etc...
People should print and they will print, its just that now its possible not to print and still engage in photography.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I think you may be subconsciously backing into reality. I strongly believe people react to a hard copy printed image more than an electronic one. I see my photography as a means for me to communicate some emotion or information. So I use what they react to. I don't try to convince them about what they respond to, I give them what works.
The comparison to an e-card is an excellent one. Every December holiday season, I send out by mail a limited number of 5x7 cards, each having a 4x6 hand made print and a short handwritten note. Those have a strong positive response. I don't try to convince people that an e-card with JPG should mean the same. I just do what works. Sentimental? No. Accepting reality? Yes.
GSNfan
Well-known
Of course a hard copy is preferred, especially when digital media can be pirated for nothing. Imagine downloading the whole HCB collection in high-format form a torrent site.
Look what digital media did to music industry, overnight it literally changed everything. Did music establishment and most of musicians wanted it that way? Of course not but they were bloodied and bruised until they endorsed digital media and now they're making money once again.
The digital future of photography looks scary but we have no choice but to adopt, and until then people can print and follow the traditional ways of presenting pictures.
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Make prints. Your digital photograph has no actual existence. Until it's printed, it is only a set of electrical impulses.
Think about how valuable your family's old photographs are to you, then realize that the photographic history of this generation will be mostly lost because of careless/ignorant/incompetent handling of digital records.
Think about how valuable your family's old photographs are to you, then realize that the photographic history of this generation will be mostly lost because of careless/ignorant/incompetent handling of digital records.
emraphoto
Veteran
I most certainly have the choice to not really embrace it too. I get your point however there is sometimes a logic in turning left when the crowd goes right.
Now is a PERFECT time to consider which direction you will turn.
Case in point... Dave Burnett
Now is a PERFECT time to consider which direction you will turn.
Case in point... Dave Burnett
Sparrow
Veteran
No! I have a choice. The print is or has the greater value, it's worth more! I'm prepared to pay more to own it. The file that created that print isn't an artefact itself, you could take one of my files from flickr and run off a ink-jet print would you really think you owned one of my photos?
GSNfan
Well-known
I think you asked an even more pressing question, why would I pay for your print when I can download your image and print it myself or use it as desktop or digital panel etc?
The whole future of still photographs as saleable commodity is a question mark.
Sparrow
Veteran
My prints are art not a commodity, and only those I print are art
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I come at it from a different direction. Long ago, I concluded the purpose of my photography was to communicate emotion or information to others. I decided I could accomplish that goal best by freeing myself of any economic influence. I refuse to work for hire or sell photos / prints. Don't think I pass up much money anyway. I have been generous in allowing others to use my work or giving people prints. That accomplishes my goal.
I do tell people not to try to make a print from a downloaded low resolution JPG. I would rather make them a good print and mail it to them so they will have something of quality. And that same logic applies to people who sell prints.
Now I do think that the sale of still images will remain a viable, even if difficult, market. That is because of our respect for intellectual property rights. No real news organization is going to knowingly use a pirated photo. But you certainly are right that has become an electronic marketplace, not one for prints.
GSNfan
Well-known
Sparrow said:
Art was not a commodity, it was commissioned by the kings and aristocrats, or clergy for a 'higher purpose'. The artist sold his services and not his art, the art was priceless and it was there to tell a story or make a statement about the person who commissioned it.
The things changed with the emergence of middle class and 'new money' who wanted the same goodies as the aristocracy so art became a commodity for sale and it has been so ever since.
But then we've come a long way from Caravaggio to Goya to Cindy Sherman?! lol
Last edited:
evanbaines
Drunk the RF Kool Aid
The reason I brought up the Matrix before is that I think that it segues into the larger question that you address:
If computers, technology, online interaction, and so on can provide a perfect enough substitute for a "real world" experience, would we want them to? All a photograph does is send a set of instructions to receptors in our eyes, which is processed and interpreted by our brains. This is true whether it is a print or a screen providing the information. What if we could cut out the "middle man" entirely and pipe this information directly into our brains? This would (executed properly) inevitably provide better quality than any visual experience. Why bother to create ANYTHING if a virtual substitute can be more perfect?
Obviously, this is a thought experiment, but I believe there is a real parallel between Cypher's dilemma in the Matrix and the question you ask about why bother to print:
If confronted with an imperfect "real" world and a more perfect "virtual" world, does the term "real" have any significant value? Is it better to be king of the Matrix, or a peasant offline. If human experience is simply the sum of the impulses that our brains receive, does it really matter where they come from?
GSNfan
Well-known
You have the right idea, because throughout photography history most great works were done not for money but for an altruistic reason(s). The Americans is a good example, I'm pretty sure neither Frank nor its publisher had any hopes of making money on it.
The sale of photographs is a question mark because the reasons for looking at still photos are diminished day by day. How much time do we spent looking at still photos, and yet all of us, amateurs especially, furiously keep making pictures.
Our need for news and visual stimulus is satisfied by video in the form of Tv footage, youtube and movies, is there any place left for still photos?
As I said before the party as it was is over. We just have to imagine photography in this brave new world of saturation with video imagery, digital media and devices. Sometimes I feel nostalgic for photography as it was, even though I have no idea how it was because I was too young to be a photographer.